Case Digest (G.R. No. 228704)
Facts:
Angelo Dwight Penson (petitioner) was the registered owner of two Paranaque parcels under TCT Nos. 110503 and 110504, where he and his wife, Jovita Lorna Penson, had resided for more than ten years. In 1992, Jovita, acting as petitioner’s attorney-in-fact under a Special Power of Attorney, executed in favor of respondents Melchor and Virginia Maranan a Deed of Real Estate Mortgage securing a promissory note for P1,950,000.00; petitioner later alleged that the mortgage and power of attorney were fraudulent. After Jovita failed to comply with a Compromise Agreement (Civil Case No. 95-0100), the property was extrajudicially foreclosed on October 23, 1997, and respondents became the highest bidders; new titles were issued in their names, and an ex-parte petition for writ of possession under Act No. 3135 was granted by the RTC (LRC Case No. 99-065). Petitioner then filed Civil Case No. 99-0272 for annulment of title and obtained a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction enjoining re Case Digest (G.R. No. 228704)
Facts:
- Parties, properties, and relationship of parties to the mortgage
- Petitioner Angelo Dwight Penson was the registered owner of two parcels of land in Parañaque, each covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) Nos. 110503 and 110504, each covering 640 square meters.
- The parties’ family home stood on the properties and they had been residing there for more than ten years.
- Petitioner was married to Jovita Lorna Penson (Jovita).
- Respondents were Spouses Melchor and Virginia Maranan.
- The properties later became the subject of a Deed of Real Estate Mortgage dated August 17, 1992, which secured a promissory note dated August 14, 1992 for P1,950,000.00.
- The promissory note and the deed were executed by Jovita, in her own behalf and as petitioner’s attorney-in-fact, in favor of respondents.
- Petitioner alleged that the Deed of Real Estate Mortgage and the Special Power of Attorney dated July 9, 1992 were fraudulent.
- Prior civil case and compromise agreement leading to foreclosure
- The writ of possession issued later was issued pursuant to a Compromise Agreement dated March 7, 1997 between Jovita and respondents in Civil Case No. 95-0100, an action for annulment of contract with prayer for issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction and restraining order, filed on May 9, 1995.
- The RTC approved the Compromise Agreement in its Order dated March 7, 1997.
- Under the Compromise Agreement, Jovita acknowledged her total obligation to respondents of P6,082,373.00 as of October 17, 1996.
- As consideration for settlement, respondents accepted Jovita’s offer to pay THREE MILLION (P3,000,000.00) PESOS instead of P6,082,373.00, payable on six monthly installments.
- The payments were to be covered by postdated checks issued upon signing.
- If Jovita failed to pay any month installment or if any of the six checks was dishonored, it would be construed as a violation of the Compromise Agreement.
- Upon such violation, respondents would have the right to foreclose the Real Estate Mortgage executed by Jovita on August 17, 1992, covering the parcels and the improvements.
- The foreclosure was expressly tied to the parcels covered by the relevant TCTs under the mortgage and was “subject to the redemption period provided for by law.”
- The Compromise Agreement further provided that respondents might move for the issuance of a Writ of Execution by mere motion in case of violation.
- Due to Jovita’s failure to fulfill her obligation under the Compromise Agreement, the property was extrajudicially foreclosed on October 23, 1997, with respondents as the highest bidders.
- The Deputy Sheriff issued a Certificate of Sale on November 6, 1997.
- TCT Nos. 139462 and 139463 were issued on November 18, 1998 in the name of respondents.
- Proceedings on issuance of writ of possession in RTC LRC Case No. 99-065
- Respondents moved for issuance of a writ of possession.
- The RTC of Parañaque City, Branch 257 denied the motion in its Order dated March 19, 1999, reasoning that the Compromise Agreement did not contain a provision on the automatic issuance of a writ of possession.
- Respondents’ motion for reconsideration was also denied in an Order dated May 4, 1999, holding that respondents’ remedy was to file a petition for issuance of a writ of possession under Act No. 3135.
- Respondents then filed an ex-parte petition for issuance of a writ of possession with the same RTC of Parañaque City, Branch 257, docketed as LRC Case No. 99-065.
- The RTC granted the petition in its Decision dated July 14, 1999, with a dispositive order directing Jovita Lorna F. Penson and all persons claiming rights under her to deliver and transfer possession of the properties covered by TCT Nos. 139462 and 139463 to Spouses Melchor and Virginia Maranan.
- A writ of possession was issued on July 21, 1999, directing the Deputy Sheriff to implement the RTC’s Decision.
- Petitioner’s complaint and issuance of preliminary mandatory injunction by another RTC branch
- Before the writ of possession could be satisfied, petitioner filed a complaint for Annulment of Title with Damages with urgent prayer for Temporary Restraining Order and/or Preliminary Injunction with the RTC of Parañaque City, Branch 260, docketed as Civil Case No. 99-0272.
- Acting on petitioner’s prayer for writ of preliminary mandatory injunction, the RTC issued an Order dated August 17, 1999, granting the writ and enjoining respondents and all persons acting for and in their behalf from implementing the writ of possession, subject to petitioner’s posting of a bond of P3,000,000.00.
- Respondents moved for reconsideration, but the motion was denied.
- Court of Appeals certiorari proceeding and reversal
- Respondents filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA), assailing the RTC Orders dated August 17, 1999 and March 20, 2000.
- Respondents argued that the RTC had no jurisdiction to issue a writ of preliminary injunction because it interfered with the orders of a co-equal court.
- Respondents also argued they were already owners and petitioner had no more right in esse needing protection.
- The CA sustained respondents’ arguments and granted the petition.
- The CA set aside the RTC Orders dated August 17, 1999 and March 20, 2000 in its Decision dated November 14, 2000.
- The CA denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration in a Resolution dated June 20, 2001.
- The CA’s dispositive portion granted the petition and set aside the assailed RTC Orde...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Whether the Court of Appeals correctly held that the RTC branch that issued the writ of preliminary mandatory injunction unlawfully interfered with processes of a co-equal and co-ordinate court
- Whether injunction could validly enjoin implementation of a writ of possession issued by another RTC of concurrent jurisdiction.
- Whether a writ of possession issued in an extrajudicial foreclosure proceeding under Act No. 3135 could be enjoined
- Whether issuance of a writ of possession is a ministerial duty and issues as a matter of course.
- Whether exceptions exist when a third party is actually holding the property adversely to the judgment debtor.
- Whether petitioner was such a third party in possession asserting an adverse right.
- Whether the writ of possession could be enforced against petitioner although petitioner was not named as a judgment debtor or as a party in the writ
- Whether enforcement could proceed against petitioner as a person claiming rights under Jovita.
- Whether petitioner’s alleged invalidity or fraud in the mortgage and power of attorney prevented enforceme...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)